Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

or Secretary of State?

Sec of Defense: Jim Webb

duh

Sec of State: Chelsea Clinton

I've a soft spot for Kerry after the medal throwing, the Kerry Committee on the Contra-drug link, and the investigations into BCCI.

being generous, i'd say hillary does indeed have impressive experience -- she's seen extremely up close how the presidency works, she's been a senator, she's been secretary of state. there doesn't seem to be much evidence that her experience has made her terribly good at those things tho, and her association with 90s retreads is uninspiring

i guess bernie was pragmatic as mayor of burlington?

and beyond policy questions is whether either has the capability to manage the executive branch, eg here in nyc diblasio probably has better intentions than bloomberg, but seems much less effective at running the show

she's not good at politics!

There's some truth to this. I respect her chops as a policy wonk, but I'm not sure her political skills have really been proven. Her record of electoral success is basically two easy NY Senate races. Bernie has a much more impressive record of winning competitive races (and as an Independent, which is not easy in American politics). On the other hand, it's always better to be lucky than good, and so far it looks like her luck might hold this year, if either Trump or Cruz ends up as the GOP nominee. Those two could make her seem downright likable.

can we not use the phrase "policy w---" ever plz

I'm not trying to oversell it, but there's a reasonable argument to be made that the same sort of political instincts that allow a politician to run a sharp campaign are equally necessary to being a successful president, iow a president who achieves their policy objectives. If HRC wins, she'll be incredibly lucky that Paul Ryan is another w*** who seems not too attached to the goddamn Hastert Rule.

^edited for your viewing pleasure

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-and-the-realists

now this is a piece that criticizes the sanders campaign while deigning to give it some of the respect it deserves

Not sure what the objection to "wonk" is. Isn't WonkBlog still a thing? Anyhow, let me phrase it differently: I think she has a good grasp of policy detail and for the most part well-thought out policy positions that she can ably defend in a genteel debate-type setting (whether she can effectively sell them to the electorate at large in the face of crude populist attacks being a different question).

to me it's shorthand for "doing your research like an intelligent person," a concept that Beltway elites can't understand w/out belittling (I'm not attacking you, I hope!).

Ah, I see. Seems like we need a word for the opposite of "wonk" then to describe politicians like Trump, who seems to think the minutiae of policy are for losers.

Latest poll shows Clinton up by 29 points in Iowa. Polls are weird.

Btw, what are the great accomplishments that Sanders has done?

he voted against the iraq war

nah -- ryan being a wonk is seen (for now) as a positive because it makes him seem 'smart'

maybe he gets a pass because beard + bro lifting also makes him 'charismatic'?

Latest poll shows Clinton up by 29 points in Iowa. Polls are weird.

Btw, what are the great accomplishments that Sanders has done?

He pretty much spearheaded fixing the VA. You know the VA, right? Those are all the people Hill sent to Iraq. How's that?

i don't know much about the VA work, but i don't see why it can't be a good example. if someone devoted his life to war (a general) and was running people wouldn't question his experience to run a government

Wel...

Clinton News Network. Why did I even bother? You're like the Geir Hongro of American politics

Yeah, it's 'lamestream media', right?

No seriously, he was head of an area when a scandal hit. There's disagreement if he fixed it quickly enough. It's hardly Obamacare...

quickly enough for what?

Read the link.

http://www.skychariot.com/N90BR/SproulTCRabbitCF144.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZYBjldVIAE8b0N.jpg

This is Our America

There seems to be a pretty massive double standard. Sanders get's points for voting against the iraq war, though it didn't mean a thing, but Clinton get's none for the failed health care reforms in the nineties. New York is a safe seat, but Vermont is apparently really competitive... And being a congress member is somehow better than being Secretary of State and First Lady of US and Arkansas.

Look: Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. She might not be a good politician, she's obviously too centrist for most of this board - including me - but stop arguing that she isn't vastly more experienced than Sanders. It's stupid.

look: there aren't that many danish nationals arguing for the establishment american democratic candidate online at 0445 local time. it's ridiculous to argue otherwise

"failed health care reforms"

she bungled this, dickweed

look: there aren't that many danish nationals arguing for the establishment american democratic candidate online at 0445 local time. it's ridiculous to argue otherwise

― mookieproof, 23. januar 2016 04:50 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sure, but what has that got to do with anything?

Man, Sanders fans are the worst.

That second sentence was in reaction to humangarbage.

i was kind of being flippant about the iraq war vote, but 'voting against the iraq war, though it didn't mean a thing" is a stupid thing to bring up while also discussing our veteran affairs

There seems to be a pretty massive double standard. Sanders get's points for voting against the iraq war, though it didn't mean a thing, but Clinton get's none for the failed health care reforms in the nineties. New York is a safe seat, but Vermont is apparently really competitive... And being a congress member is somehow better than being Secretary of State and First Lady of US and Arkansas.

Look: Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. She might not be a good politician, she's obviously too centrist for most of this board - including me - but stop arguing that she isn't vastly more experienced than Sanders. It's stupid.

― Frederik B, Friday, January 22, 2016 10:45 PM (5 minutes ago)

saying sanders' iraq war vote means nothing is a joke, sorry. (maybe it means nothing in terms of the outcome of this election, but it...signifies something.) votes on iraq sure meant a lot in 2008.

agree though that clinton is more experienced. is experience itself a virtue? not necessarily. but i'd agree that arguing that their "experience" is comparable is not really useful

if there is a difference between signifying and meaning something then it's beyond me, but that war fucking meant something

i think Frederik might have been meaning more in terms of policy tho idk

outcomes, nevermind

It's great that Sanders was against the Iraq war, it's a massive plus in my book as well. But it's not a policy achievement, his vote didn't have actual consequences. He didn't stop the war. It says nothing about his policy abilities, it just says something great about his views. But so does Clinton's health care reform attempts.

Of course the consequences of Clinton's support led us to war though.

There's some truth to this. I respect her chops as a policy wonk, but I'm not sure her political skills have really been proven. Her record of electoral success is basically two easy NY Senate races. Bernie has a much more impressive record of winning competitive races (and as an Independent, which is not easy in American politics).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders

bernie sanders hasn't had to run a real election in 22 years and vermont is roughly comparable in population to portland oregon

It's great that Sanders was against the Iraq war, it's a massive plus in my book as well. But it's not a policy achievement, his vote didn't have actual consequences. He didn't stop the war. It says nothing about his policy abilities, it just says something great about his views. But so does Clinton's health care reform attempts.

― Frederik B, Friday, January 22, 2016 11:02 PM (9 minutes ago)

you realize that hypothetically as president he may have a slightly larger influence over these sorts of decisions

bernie sanders hasn't had to run a real election in 22 years and vermont is roughly comparable in population to portland oregon

― iatee, Friday, January 22, 2016 11:07 PM (6 minutes ago)

yet by virtually all accounts he's running a pretty great campaign so i guess it doesn't matter

Sure, but what has that got to do with anything?

Man, Sanders fans are the worst.

sure

Man, Sanders fans are the worst.

sure

― mookieproof

don't talk about my mom like that

he's run a great campaign by making promises he can't keep, being the only alternative to the establishment and saying things that appeal to white primary voters w/ far from mainstream political views. so he's run 'a great campaign' just like trump has run 'a great campaign'.

i agree! how is hillary different

hillary isn't selling people single payer health care and free college tuition

school sucks don't go to class

Let's return to going round and round about Trump and Cruz, shall we? This is worse than Christmas dinner

hillary isn't selling people single payer health care and free college tuition

Please refer to the Warren snippet I posted above

Ouch, I posted my pentimenti

I predict nobody will be nominated or elected president

iatee
Posted: January 22, 2016 at 10:28:01 PM
hillary isn't selling people single payer health care and free college tuition

Man both of those goals sure are terrible

I'm looking for a democrat without ambition or hope, so your take really resonates with me.

If Clinton just admitted she was going to capitulate right off the bat, that would save a bunch of people the time it took to get mad at Obama for not accomplishing as much as they hoped, so it would serve the schaudenfreude wing of the modern Democratic Party.